Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87442 Case Number: LCR11377 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IMETU;ITGWU;FWUI |
Claim for an increase in eating-on-site allowance.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to the current financial situation of the
Corporation the Court does not recommend concession of this claim
at this time.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87442 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11377
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11377
Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TRADE UNION
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim for an increase in eating-on-site allowance.
Background:
2. This claim concerns 4,000 general operatives employed by the
Corporation. The eating-on-site allowance was first introduced
into the Corporation in 1978 for workers in the waterworks
department as a result of Labour Court Recommendation 4918A/L.
This allowance was later extended to include most general
operatives working for the Corporation. The original amount of
the allowance was 73p per day.
3. In 1981 the allowance was increased to #1.13 per day as a
result of Labour Court Recommendation 6607. It is still at that
level. The Unions are claiming that the allowance should be
increased. The Corporation rejected the claim. No agreement was
reached through local negotiations and on 5th March, 1987 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 21st April, 1987 but
no agreement was reached. On 2nd June, 1987 the case was referred
to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 6th August, 1987 - the earliest date suitable
to all parties.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The working conditions which applied when the allowance
was first agreed and extended are still applicable.
(ii) In 1981 the Corporation's main argument, before the
Labour Court, was that the character of the allowance
had changed since it was first introduced. However,
the Court did not accept that argument. The
Corporation is still using the same argument in
relation to the present claim. No reason exists for a
further consideration of that argument.
(iii) This allowance has not been increased since 1981. It
has only been increased once since its inception nine
years ago. An increase is now justified. There is no
other payment of any sort in the Corporation which has
not been increased in six years.
(iv) In 1981 the eating-on-site allowance paid by the E.S.B.
was #1.45 while the Corporation allowance was #1.13.
In 1987 the E.S.B. allowance has been increased to
#2.62 while the Corporation allowance is still #1.13.
The eating-on-site allowance in the Gas Company is
#1.90 per day at present.
(v) All other allowances in the Corporation are increased
periodically, usually in line with pay increases.
Since 1981 they have accumulated an increase of
approximately 60%. There is no reason why the
eating-on-site allowance should be any different.
(vi) Public sector subsistence payments are increased
regularly.
(vii) There is no reason to regard the eating-on-site
allowance as being in a special "untouchable" category.
It is a payment like any other, which must be increased
from time to time. Its history shows that in fact the
unions have been moderate in pressing for increases.
However, after six years an increase is overdue.
(viii) At no stage was the Corporation prepared to negotiate
an increase or to agree any criteria or method of
assessing what increase is justified. There was a
forthright rejection of the claim. The Unions would
suggest that the allowance should be increased to #2
per day.
Corporation's arguments:
5. (a) The scope and cost of the allowance is much greater
than originally envisaged. Account should be taken of
this in considering the adequacy of the amount payable.
The very special and restrictive circumstances for
which this allowance was originally recommended by the
Labour Court have since been diluted to the extent that
the allowance is now in practice paid to the majority
of employees in the Corporation.
(b) When the Labour Court originally recommended payment of
an eating-on-site allowance in 1978 the Court noted
that the Corporation was willing to provide more
suitable facilities for the partaking of meals by the
workers involved but until these facilities were
provided the Court recommended payment of a daily
allowance. In fact, since the introduction of the
allowance a number of new depots have been constructed
with excellent canteen facilities but the Unions have
shown no willingness whatever to surrender receipt of
the allowance.
(c) Although there is no real comparison, the Corporation's
eating-on-site allowance of #1.13 per day, untaxed,
compares very favourably with the taxed meal allowance
payable in the Construction Industry and to workers in
Government Departments where working conditions and
facilities for the partaking of meals are similar to a
daily payment of 97.50p per day nett of tax.
(d) In Labour Court recommendation No. 6607 the Court
specifically discounted the argument that there was a
relationship between the allowance payable in the
Corporation and that payable in the E.S.B.
(e) Any concession of the claim would have serious
repercussive effects both within the Corporation and in
other areas of the public service.
(f) Concession of the claim would have grave financial and
employment implications for the Corporation (details
supplied to the Court). Any increase or improvement in
conditions at this stage must inevitably lead to
pay-off of further staff in all categories.
(g) It is now a question of increases versus jobs. The
Corporation's position is rapidly approaching that of
the health boards' where drastic measures have been
imposed.
(h) The Corporation comes within the scope of the
Government's budgetary policy which specifically
precludes the concession of any special increases or
improvements in conditions not already approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having regard to the current financial situation of the
Corporation the Court does not recommend concession of this claim
at this time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman
27th August, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.